Catenary soil development influencing erosion susceptibility along a hillslope in Uganda

Abstract Systematic variations of soil properties occur along the hillslope due to differences in water and energy conditions. Such catenary soil variations are often assumed, in turn, to influence erosion processes, but quantitative investigations dealing with the reciprocal relationship between catenary soil development and erosion processes are limited. This study models the influence of catenary soil development on erosion processes on a hillslope in Uganda. The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)- model was selected to determine the impact of spatial distribution of soil types on hillslope soil loss. A detailed soil survey confirmed a well-developed catenary sequence at the study site. Soils at the summit position had a thick solum due to the stable soil formation on the flat surface, whereas soils at the shoulder position had shallow A-horizons due to active erosion processes. Valley and footslope soils showed hydromorphic features and accumulation of soil material from upslope. The performance of the WEPP- model was evaluated by a sensitivity analysis, which proved that the model was sensitive to vertical changes in soil properties to a depth of 40 cm. High sensitivity to soil texture indicated that the catenary sequence at the study site may have a strong influence on model simulations. When the hillslope was modelled as a uniform soil-landscape unit using each individual soil profile separately, simulated outputs showed high variations with annual soil loss ranging between 2.5 and 9 t/ha. This variation was reduced by including an increasing number of distinct soil-landscape units representative for the individual slope sections. Simulations considering a catenary soil sequence showed a clear spatial demarcation between erosion and sedimentation zones, which was verified by soil investigations. This implies that simulations including a higher number of soil-landscape units generate a more realistic spatial distribution of erosion–sedimentation processes at a hillslope.

[1]  H. M. L. Chaves,et al.  UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS OF THE WEPP SOIL EROSION MODEL , 1991 .

[2]  M. Seyfried.  Spatial variability constraints to modeling soil water at different scales , 1998 .

[3]  J. J. Stoorvogel,et al.  Research on soil fertility decline in tropical environments: integration of spatial scales. , 1998 .

[4]  L. J. Lane,et al.  Development and application of modern soil erosion prediction technology - The USDA experience , 1992 .

[5]  D. Flanagan,et al.  The USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) , 1997 .

[6]  Richard H. McCuen,et al.  The role of sensitivity analysis in hydrologic modeling , 1973 .

[7]  M. Kirkby,et al.  Hillslope Form and Process , 1972 .

[8]  M. R. Savabi.  Determining Soil Water Characteristics for Application of WEPP Model in South Florida , 2001 .

[9]  K. Shepherd,et al.  Maintenance and improvement of soil productivity in the highlands of Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar and Uganda , 1997 .

[10]  K. Oost,et al.  Modeling translocation and dispersion of soil constituents by tillage on sloping land , 2000 .

[11]  L. J. Lane,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis of the WEPP Watershed Model for Rangeland Applications I: Hillslope Processes , 1993 .

[12]  Wolfgang-Albert Flügel,et al.  Delineating hydrological response units by geographical information system analyses for regional hydrological modelling using PRMS/MMS in the drainage basin of the River Bröl, Germany , 1995 .

[13]  Keith Beven,et al.  Changing ideas in hydrology — The case of physically-based models , 1989 .

[14]  C. T. Wit.  Photosynthesis of leaf canopies , 1965 .

[15]  C. Dirksen,et al.  Hydraulic Conductivity and Diffusivity: Laboratory Methods , 2018, SSSA Book Series.

[16]  L. J. Lane,et al.  The USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project , 1988 .

[17]  T. Schumacher,et al.  Modeling spatial variation in productivity due to tillage and water erosion , 1999 .

[18]  Anita Veihe,et al.  Sustainable Farming Practices: Ghanaian Farmers' Perception of Erosion and Their Use of Conservation Measures , 2000, Environmental management.

[19]  William J. Elliot,et al.  Validation of the Weather Generator CLIGEN with Precipitation Data from Uganda , 2001 .

[20]  D. Greenland,et al.  Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land Use , 1994 .

[21]  Mark A. Nearing,et al.  SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE WEPP HILLSLOPE PROFILE EROSION MODEL , 1990 .

[22]  Jürgen Schmidt,et al.  Soil erosion : application of physically based models , 2000 .

[23]  Mike Kirkby,et al.  Scaling up processes and models from the field plot to the watershed and regional areas. , 1996 .

[24]  Gerard Govers,et al.  GIS-based simulation of erosion and deposition patterns in an agricultural landscape: a comparison of model results with soil map information , 1995 .

[25]  James C. Ascough,et al.  The WEPP watershed model : I. Hydrology and erosion , 1997 .

[26]  G. R. Foster,et al.  USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) , 1987 .

[27]  K. Richards,et al.  Establishing the role of pedogenesis in changing soil hydraulic properties , 1993 .

[28]  F. Bagoora.  Soil erosion and mass wasting risk in the highland area of Uganda , 1988 .

[29]  G. Bouyoucos.  Hydrometer Method Improved for Making Particle Size Analyses of Soils1 , 1962 .

[30]  J. Tothill.  Agriculture in Uganda , 1942 .

[31]  V. Jetten,et al.  Sensitivity of the Model LISEM to Variables Related to Agriculture , 1998 .

[32]  Lubos Mitas,et al.  Distributed soil erosion simulation for effective erosion prevention , 1998 .

[33]  D. Hamby.  A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models , 1994, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[34]  Eric F. Wood,et al.  Scaling behaviour of hydrological fluxes and variables: Empirical studies using a hydrological model and remote sensing data , 1995 .

[35]  J. Syers,et al.  Managing soils for long-term productivity , 1997 .

[36]  I. Baillie,et al.  Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility: A Handbook of Methods. , 1990 .